S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) SINCE the controversy involved and the questions raised in both the writ petitions are common, on the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions which have been heard together are being disposed of by a common order.

( 2 ) THE petitioners feel aggrieved by an order passed by the legal authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 whereunder their claim raised under Section 20 of the said Act for the recovery of the balance due on account of payment of amount less than the minimum rates or wages had been rejected holding that they were not entitled to any relief.

( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government advocate, representing the State-respondents and have carefully perused the record.

( 4 ) THE facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of the Writ Petitions, lie in a narrow compass: The petitioners had been employed in the establishment of the respondents on daily wage basis. They were being paid an amount of Rs. 20. 90 paise per day towards wages. They had filed on July 8, 1994 the claim petition under Section 20 of the minimum Wages Act praying that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document